brickclubfandomcom-20200213-history
1.1.11-Kingedmundsroyalmurder
brick!club days 11 and 12: of philosophy, politics, and materialism First off an apology for falling behind again. I have no excuse save my own laziness, though I could probably also argue relatively convincingly that there’s not a whole lot to analyze about these two chapters. Hugo is even less subtle than usual, so there aren’t a whole lot of hidden messages or subtextual themes to pick up on here. It’s just all plain old text. (In other words the only actual note that I made in these chapters reads: “you’re not subtle in the slightest.” All the rest is just highlighting.) But let us forge ahead and see if we can find things to talk about anyway. Basically in these two chapters Hugo expands on his twin ideas of the Bishop’s self-imposed poverty (including how this affects him socially) and the materialism of the church. Obviously these two themes are connected rather intimately, as we see when the Bishop goes to the synod and is promptly sent home because, as he puts it, “Je les gênais. L’air du dehors leur venait par moi. Je leur faisais l’effet d’une porte ouverte.” (I bothered them. The outside air came to them through me. I was to them like an open door.) In other words, he was much too common for such an illustrious gathering and he reminded them too much of those peasants and their rustic ways. Which, given how we’re meant to be viewing the Bishop after all this time, is a fairly clear condemnation of the other attendees. And then Hugo begins his ranting against materialism in the church, which he gets back to in chapter 12 and we get this: “Un prêtre opulent est un contre-sens.” (A wealthy priest is a contradiction.) This is what got my aforementioned only annotation. I don’t really think I have anything to add. I do appreciate that the Bishop doesn’t care for Napoleon, despite the fact that Napoleon is the only reason that he has his position in the first place. I also appreciate Hugo’s fairly snarky remark that politics and progress have very little to do with each other. I’m not sure I buy his later remark that those who supported someone in his prime have no right to criticize him in his decline though. If someone changes their policies or their action plan or flat out stops being good at what they’re meant to be doing I think former supporters have every right to be annoyed and withdraw their allegiance. It also implies that people aren’t allowed to change their minds over time, which seems to run counter to a lot of the rest of the philosophy of the book. And then we get an entire chapter more or less entirely devoted to why the materialism and politics of the church are bad and why success is nothing but a twist of fate and is determined by the whims of history. I don’t actually think I have anything to say about this chapter that Hugo didn’t say in the actual text, honestly. Though he is kind of denying the existence of genius at all here and saying that it’s all due to circumstance and politics and propaganda. (Which could potentially lead to the great men vs. right place/right time history debate. And also seems to contradict his later veneration of Enjolras. Unless what he’s actually saying is that greatness and genius are real qualities but it’s more or less left up to chance and politics which of those great men are remembered by history.) Commentary Pilferingapples The impression I got from his genius/confusion speech was that he believes in genius/greatness BUT that it’s a different quality from material success. To use the obvious in-text example, Enjolras isn’t great because he’s successful, but because he has a rare degree of vision and determination. Other later men might succeed with less vision or focus, but by this reckoning that makes them lucky, not a Hugo-type genius. And yeah, gotta say I too feel like it’s totally ok to quit following a leader who isn’t leading well (though what that means will vary by leader and cause, of course). You have one job, leaders! One job! And getting someone else to do a *job* when the person currently at the task is failing is not the same thing as abandoning a friend.